G.R. No. 149280 . May 9, 2002.
MOF COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. EDWIN ENRIQUEZ, doing business under the name and style CRESCENS FOOD PRODUCTS, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Edwin Enriquez, an exporter of broas cookies, engaged the services of petitioner MOF Company, Inc., a customs and forwarding broker, for the door-to-door delivery of two shipments to a consignee in the United States. The agreement, evidenced by MOF’s price quotation letters, stipulated that service charges would be collected from the consignee upon delivery, with respondent initially paying forwarding fees to be reimbursed later. MOF picked up the cargoes, processed the export documents, and subsequently delivered them to Continental Freight Services, Inc. for actual ocean carriage, under bills of lading issued to MOF.
Both shipments failed to reach the consignee. Despite respondent’s complaints and MOF’s promises to follow up, the cargoes were lost. Respondent filed a complaint for damages against MOF for breach of contract. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of respondent, awarding actual, moral, and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s finding that petitioner MOF Company, Inc. breached its contract of carriage with respondent Enriquez and is thus liable for damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, which are generally conclusive and binding. The evidence established a perfected contract of carriage for a door-to-door service between respondent and petitioner. MOF’s letters constituted an offer, which respondent accepted by delivering the goods. The payment of an initial fee was part of their arrangement, with final collection from the consignee.
Petitioner’s defense that it acted merely as a broker and that the contract of carriage was solely between respondent and Continental Freight is untenable. As the principal that contracted with respondent and undertook to deliver the goods to the consignee, MOF is directly liable for the breach. The fact that it subcontracted the ocean freight to another carrier does not absolve it of responsibility to the shipper for the safe delivery of the goods. The loss of the shipments constituted a clear breach of its contractual obligation. Consequently, the award of damages by the lower courts, being supported by evidence and in accordance with law, was proper.